Molestina v Ponton [QBD (Comm)]
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court) |
| Judge | Colman J. |
| Judgment Date | 16 May 2001 |
| Neutral Citation | [2002] EWHC 2413 (Comm),[2002] EWHC 366 (Comm) |
| Date | 16 May 2001 |
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
50 cases
-
UBS AG (London Branch) and Another v Kommunale Wasserwerke Leipzig GMBH UBS Ltd and Another (Third Parties)
...were a single transaction for the purpose of the issue of rescission. But this is not a pure question of law. As Coleman J observed in the De Molestina case it involves a mixed question of fact and law to which matrix evidence may be of particular relevance. 316 In the light in particular o......
-
Pakistan v Zardari
...the claim" ( CPR 24.2): Carvill America Inc v Camperdown U.K. Ltd [2005] EWCA 645, [2005] 2 Lloyd's Rep 457; and see De Molestina v Ponton [2002] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 271, 279–281. It is probable that there is no practical difference between this test and the test for the purposes of RSC Ord. 11,......
-
Pakistan v Zardari [QBD (Comm)]
...EWCA Civ 645; [2005] 1 CLC 845. Daraydan Holdings Ltd v Solland International LtdUNK [2004] EWHC 622 (Ch); [2005] Ch 119. De Molestina v Ponton [2001] CLC 1412. Grant v Gold Exploration and Development Syndicate LtdELR [1900] 1 QB 233. ISC Technologies Ltd v GuerinUNK [1992] 2 Ll Rep 430. I......
-
Mr Hitendrakumar Patel v Mr Michael John Parker
...can be so clearly regarded as an affirmation as to equate to a “knockout” blow. 115 As Colman J said in De Molestina v. Ponton [2002] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 271 at [3.5] (approved by Carnwath LJ in the Court of Appeal in Mentmore International Ltd v Abbey Healthcare (Festival) Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ......
Get Started for Free
